January 13, 2013

WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to push Congress to move quickly in the coming months on an ambitious overhaul of the immigration system that would include a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, senior administration officials and lawmakers said last week.

Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats will propose the changes in one comprehensive bill, the officials said, resisting efforts by some Republicans to break the overhaul into smaller pieces — separately addressing young illegal immigrants, migrant farmworkers or highly skilled foreigners — which might be easier for reluctant members of their party to accept.

The president and Democrats will also oppose measures that do not allow immigrants who gain legal status to become American citizens one day, the officials said.

Even while Mr. Obama has been focused on fiscal negotiations and gun control, overhauling immigration remains a priority for him this year, White House officials said. Top officials there have been quietly working on a broad proposal. Mr. Obama and lawmakers from both parties believe that the early months of his second term offer the best prospects for passing substantial legislation on the issue.

There is a significant difference in the feel of the times selected comments on this article and the reader selected comments. The latter seem far more restrictionist.

I think isteve should put together a digest of the most salient immigration facts. Like, how many millions of third world immigrants have come in legally and illegally, how many millions of democrat votes does that equal, how many billions of welfare benefits have been paid, etc.

Except when you think about it it's not a new people so much as a multitude of new peoples with the resultant inability to mount any form of collective resistance to the elites - divide and rule. And if that division doesn't exist it becomes neccessary to create it.

It sure would be nice if some of these AltRight bloggers with millions of viewers collectively would maybe try to take the narrative away from the neocons and Rubios of the GOP by organzing a counter-movement.

Nah, gotta argue about what to call the "Dark Enlightenment" and impress other bloggers. I'm sure Tancredo et al will pull victory from the jaws of defeat at the last second again.

I posted a comment there in which I brought up your point about the earlier wage stagnation article. The NYT actually accepted it. I noticed that someone else did as well. The reader-picked comments were overwhelmingly anti-amnesty. But people who don't really care one way or the other are of course not going to comment. Only when they feel the sting of mass illegal immigration themselves will they pay attention.

Yea lets team up with all those moderate democrats. Better yet lets not vote that will show them. The Republican Party does the best it can running against a culture and media out to get them. Go ahead pick a Conservative party you'd rather have.

I wonder how eager Obama would be to do this if those 11,000,000 criminal infilitrators, (oh sorry, that would be those ones in Israel) illegal aliens were likely to vote Republican? Its pretty easy for the Democrats to amnestize future certain Democrat voters.

Because I'm just another guy with the time to read things on the internet, not an Alt-Right blogger with a pretty big audience and relationships with other Alt-Right bloggers who possibly have a chance at organizing things and has seen this shit coming down the pipeline for months now.

Well, at least Truth won't be whining that Reagan was the only president who carried out a large amnesty.

In some ways, this works against the Dems. This ticks off a lot of legal immigrants who worked hard to come the legal route, jumped through all the hoops, filled out all the paperwork, and paid thousands of dollars to the government and immigration lawyers to get their green cards. The problem for the Dems is that these immigrants tend to be brighter and more talented than the ones getting amnesty. Whether they forget about it by the next election remains to be seen.

If you oppose amnesty, this is very good news. Obama is not going to get any grand schemes on anything through the Republican House or a Senate with any sort of filibuster. He might have gotten some smaller immigration "reforms" through such as a limited DREAM act, or more HiTech Visas. But getting the whole open borders fantasy list through Congress, forget about it.

And to think there were readers of this blog who stayed home in November because they thought there was no difference between the candidates."

I didn't stay home. I went to the polls, and voted for someone other than either Obama or Romney. If Romney had been elected, he would be pushing an amnesty right now, and he would have no significant opposition from his own party in Congress.

Many of you here don't get it. Administrative amnesty means a Presidential declaration of amnesty. The next day, everything changes. They will be able to legally vote for amnesty..again and again. They will have the demographic clout to impose their will on White America. King Jorge Bush gave Anne Dunhams' son the legal right to be a defacto Monarch with the divine right of a King.

A very dangerous situation could-will emerge when reality sets in. Millions of White Americans will have their fate in the hands of nonwhites. This is not just talk. White Americans will experience the loss of self-determination every day they wake-up. It's not childs play any more. It's as real as real can get.

If Obama fails to get Congress to approve this across-the-board amnesty, I wouldn't be surprised if he just goes ahead and decrees it, the way he did when Congress wouldn't pass his DREAM act. As he did then, he'll say he's just redeploying law enforcement resources more efficiently.

" If Romney had been elected, he would be pushing an amnesty right now"

Oh, I highly doubt that. Even if Romney wanted amnesty (and there's no evidence to suggest he was wedded to it in the same way as Bush or Obama), he'd still have the goal of winning reelection ahead of him. Obama doesn't.

"and he would have no significant opposition from his own party in Congress."

Even more doubtful. If the GOP Congress opposed W on amnesty, why wouldn't they oppose Romney?

"He likely wouldn't be pushing for gun control however."

For the same reason he wouldn't be pushing for amnesty. Romney seeks consensus, and would have governed more conservatively in the White House than he did in liberal MA.

"If Romney had been elected, he would be pushing an amnesty right now""

"Oh, I highly doubt that. Even if Romney wanted amnesty (and there's no evidence to suggest he was wedded to it in the same way as Bush or Obama),"

Actually, there was lots of evidence that his so-called hard-line stance in the primaries was nothing but a tacticul ploy. He jettisoned one of his top advisors on immigration after he had the nomination sewn up, and called for deemphasizing the issue thereafter. I don't think he ever brought it up during his campaign. His only mention of it in the debates was his statement that we should staple a green-card to the diploma of every foreign student.

"he'd still have the goal of winning reelection ahead of him."

And he would win it. Or at least, that would not be the cause of his losing it. Who are Republicans going to vote for? Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton? As long as conservatives play the part of a captive electorate for the GOP, the GOP will continue to take their votes, spit in their faces, and then pat them on the head.

""and he would have no significant opposition from his own party in Congress.""

"Even more doubtful. If the GOP Congress opposed W on amnesty, why wouldn't they oppose Romney?"

Becaue parties seldom oppose their President in their first term - especially early in their first term.

Anyway, it's a moot point now. Romney is nothing more now than a commemorative plate on the sideboard of some old Republican lady.

romney would not be pushing for amnesty right now. that's just stupid.

leaving aside the fact that he wouldn't even be in office right now, since he'd be waiting for the end of obama's term, the first thing he would be doing is working on how to maintain the GW bush federal income tax rates while financing it by eliminating various deductions and, most importantly, reducing federal government spending from it's current ludicrous level. he'd be preparing his first budget. you know, something obama has not submitted in FOUR YEARS. another first for president zero. has never happened before, ever.

then he would move on to scaling back parts of PPACA, and reducing the corporate income tax rate, so that GDP growth could get above the anemic 1% which obama has locked the US into, well, perhaps permanently. obama and bernanke virtually assure the US is stuck in ZIRP in perpetuity.

the last thing he would do is start out his second term by raising federal income taxes, then going after guns, then going after amnesty.

remember, in this scenario, romney WON. he wouldn't win then IMMEDIATELY go hardcore leftist. in this scenario, the republicans have returned to the white house, and can still win national elections without giving amnesty to 12 million mexicans to "make them like us".

no way on earth does romney win in 2012 then immediately go after amnesty. the reason obama is immediately going after amnesty is because so many stupid republicans instantly bought into the idea that they lost because mexicans don't like them, and that they'll like them if they allow them to all become citizens. democrat strategists are simply trying to strike while the iron is hot, get the republicans to agree to amnesty while they're deluded, in a stupor, and ready to assent to anything.

they have to get this done while boner is still in control of the house, because boner WANTS to surrender on every issue.

what's happening right now is that the hardcore leftist won, and with no possibility for re-election, he stepped on the gas, looking to go in for the kill, and destroy the old america forever. if you think this is exactly what romney would have done you don't know what you're talking about.

If Hillary came out against amnesty, I actually think a lot of Republicans would vote for her over a RINO."

If. If she came out publicly in favor of women getting married, staying at home and raising a family, a lot of conservatives might vote for her too. And that's about equally as likely as your scenario.

No, like whipped dogs, Republican voters will continue to vote for any Republican politician, no matter how hostile they are to their interests.

By the way, Paul Ryan, Romney's boy-wonder, and who quite possibly would have been appointed to head up some kind of presidential commision on immigration reform if Romney had been elected, just endorsed Marco Rubio's position on amnesty.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.